Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now that you've brought it up... Go ahead and look at the Volt thread. You constantly support a POS, you constantly discredit other people's opinions, and you constantly claim that people have a "negative GM bias" with ZERO evidence. Of course people must be biased against Gm if they can't see the GREATNESS OF THE VOLT, right? Give me a phuckin' break. The car is a looser and you get on some moral highground and type "come at me with facts next time." Like some self-righteous prick. ALL I'VE DONE IS COME AT YOU WITH "FACTS" THAT ENTIRE THREAD. Ridiculous.

Go back a few posts, wjb, and let's take a look at some of the garbage and unsubstantiated crap you've posted in this thread. I've discredited all of it, line by line. You supported the writing of the idiot whose article you posted that started this entire discussion. His "findings" were quickly discredited, but you continued to try and use his information as being factual, while bashing Snopes for posting their rebuttal. You made a statement that Jay Leno bashes the Volt, yet the only thing I've seen is him praising it, along with the fact that he's driven it daily back and forth to work for a year and has used only 4.5 gallons of gas in all that time. First you state that you don't hate GM cars, then state that if they come out with something it is most likely junk. Multiple awards across the globe for the Volt, most decorated car in history, etc. So, I guess, the American government, the European government, the automotive press (globally), and the energy companies are all in this big conspiracy together to try and push the Volt by giving it awards.

The awards are evidence of technological superiority.

But I haven't come at you with evidence. Yeah. OK.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

May 21st, 2012, 3:20 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

Lets see... I start the thread with this:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

This was from an email, so it may be fuzzy math, but I'd like for people that "know" to pick it apart if they can. I've never driven a Volt and I know nothing about them.

As a forum to discuss the Volt. I don't comment on it at all, and I SPECIFICALLY ASK OTHER PEOPLE FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE VEHICLE.

Then Sly chimes in, then Blueskies calls the vehicle "stupid," then C02 steps in with the first endorsement of the vehcile, but instead of pointing out positives, or correcting the "facts" that I posted he simply bashes the leaf. A few others chime in about nothing really. Frok says nautural gas, TDJ chimes in and endorses the Coal fired electricity comment, and you come out with your first post here:

1. GM doesn't advertise that the Volt WILL get 40 miles per charge. What they've advertised is that the car can get up to 40 miles on a single charge, without switching to the onboard generator (that's what the engine actually is, since it doesn't drive the wheels) based on driving habits, use of on board electrical devices (A/C, heat, radio, etc.) and ambient air temperature. The amount of charge the battery can hold will, LIKE ANY OTHER BATTERY, decay over time.

2. It does NOT take 10 hours to charge a Volt. Why? Well, Einstein said that the battery gets depleted. THAT IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FALSE. The battery should NEVER deplete on this car, as the system is designed to make the switchover when the batter is at roughly 30-35% of it's total capacity. The generator then maintains that level of charge until the battery is plugged in and re-charged to capacity.

3. In regards to the smart badonkadonk postings about the Volts catching fire "for no reason"....so, I guess a vehicle that is involved in a high speed collision is "no reason" for a fire to occur? And let me add, these were vehicles that had been crashed and didn't catch fire until DAYS later, well after any driver/occupant/by stander/first responder would be a safe distance away from said vehicle. As a matter of fact, the standard procedure issued by GM BEFORE these occurances to any establishment working on a Volt involved in a crash was to remove the battery and return it to GM for review and testing. They were also told to store batteries as if they could be a hazard, simply because of the chemicals within the battery. And this happened on only two vehicles out of literally HUNDREDS that have been crashed.

4. So those of you who think the Leaf is a better vehicle...go buy one. The charge in a Michigan on a cold day will last you until about 80 miles. Hopefully I see you standing on the side of the highway in freezing temperatures with an extension cord in your blue hands, hoping that someone with a generator in the back of their pickup truck stops and helps you out. Because Lord knows, you won't find an outlet to plug into on any exit ramp, but you can find a gas station.

And for those of you who don't know...I am an engineer at GM, in fuel systems, and I am the engineer responsible for certain Volt components. That is why I know this information.

What you effectively do is spout off a bunch of rambling nonsense about technicalities like "this guy is stupid, the battery never depletes COMPLETELY," which no one really gives a poop about. You know what else never depletes completely, your cell phone battery, but when the thing is at 5% and won't turn on, guess what, for the average person, that phucker is DEAD! And that they ONLY catch fire for "no reason" AFTER a collision. The point the author was trying to make and the point that OTHER PEOPLE SEE (other people meaning people not blinded by an allegiance to GM) is that the thing can explode FOR NO REASON after a collision, and collisions happen all the time, they're called "accidents" for a reason.

Then again, like C02, you feel it necessary to bring up the leaf (for no good reason, no one is talking about the leaf) and how it is better than the Volt, again NOT THE DISCUSSION.

Then you come back with this nonsense:

m2karateman wrote:

OK...lets talk money. It's OK to have a Leaf, which has been stated. But the writer complained about the electricity costs versus gas. He claims the per gallon cost of driving on electricity is more than gas. But the Leaf is OK? How ridiculous is THAT? If it costs more for electricity, how does having a Leaf gain anyone an advantage? Answer: it doesn't (I realize the writer never mentioned his preference for the Nissan Leaf, but someone on this forum did).

Second, check out his costs regarding the Volt. $1.16 per kWh? Where the Hell does this guy live that he's paying that much for electricity, the Galapogos Islands? Check your electricity bills for the cost per kWh and get back with me. You'll soon find his numbers are WAY over what we pay here. And his estimate for the overall range of the vehicle at 270 miles is about 90 miles below what it has checked out to be. And that range of 360 miles is still three to four times more than the Leaf.

And part of his "issue" was the time and cost of recharging the battery. He claims it takes, based on a drained battery, ten hours for a recharge. THAT IS A FUKKING LIE!!!! Why? Because the battery is NEVER drained, and therefore won't take 10 hours to charge. Even with the battery down to a point where the engine kicks it, it will only take about 6 to 7 hours (depending on various factors) for the car to recharge using standard 110 volt. Half that if you are using a 220 line.

The Volt was not designed with everyone in mind. It was designed as a commuter car for the vast majority (about 80%) of people in the United States to be able to drive to work and back home without burning gas. 35-40 miles is the commute for most people in the United States. There are people who have purchased a Volt and went months without having to put gas in the tank.

So Sly, wjb and all you others who want to continue bashing the Volt, go right ahead. Sing the praises of the Nissan Leaf, which has already undergone two recall campaigns due to design issues and has had their "range" rating reduced because the battery doesn't hold the charge like they advertised. There's been many articles doing a head to head comparison between those two vehicles, and just about everyone of them shows the Volt as the superior vehicle. And many of those articles are written by journalists who have been notoriously biased against GM, Ford and Chrysler.

And sly, I'm not the one who said "for no reason".

Again, you bring up the Leaf, for who knows what reason. PROPERLY attack for the first time a refuted "fact" in the initial post, and admit that this thing has limited to no marketability.

Then Blueskies properly attacks the economics of driving a Volt, and you again spout of some nonsense as to why it is superior than the other electric vehicles when the ENTIRE POINT IS THAT ELECTRIC VEHICLES DO NOT CURRENTLY MAKE SENSE!!! And you want to talk about ridiculous claims, YOU'RE the one that claims charging a volt is no different than leaving your CPU plugged in over not. That's completely and utterly false.

Then sly tries to reason with you here:

slybri19 wrote:

M2K, I understand where you're coming from, but please lisien to my viewpoint. The Volt or any other electric vehicle isn't ready for prime time yet, so stop attemping to cram them down our throats. As Blieskies said earlier, BluRays and HDTVs didn't become popular until the prices came down. The same will be true for the Volt or any other electric vehicle that hits the market. This is fact and it's time that you deal with reality. The truth hurts sometimes.

Produce an electric car that gets 300 miles per charge and costs around $20K and I might buy one. Until then, I have no interest.

And you fly off the handle about "no one forcing the Volt down our throats" yet the Federal Govt. paid $300 million to GM to get the Volt factory up and running, the Govt. is subsidizing charging stations all over the place, and we're currently subsidizing these things to the tune of $7,500. That IS forcing them down our throats. You may not think so, you may consider it an "offering," but it is an "offering" with SOMEONE ELSE PICKING UP A GOOD PORTION OF THE TAB. You're the only one that doesn't seem to understand this point, and you're bent about the verbiage "forcing it down our throats," but the fact remains, that's how American's feel about this POS car, and it coming at the cost of OUR MONEY WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. That is "forcing" by definition.

But you don't stop there, you have to take it further. You have to claim that "until someone is forcing you to drive one at gunpoint they're not being forced down your throat," but that's simply not true. It is being forced upon us through taxation AND spending. The Federal Govt. is quite LITERALLY TAKING OUR MONEY AND GIVING IT TO GM for these garbage cars that PEOPLE DON'T WANT!!! Get it through your head, PEOPLE DON'T WANT THESE THINGS. THEY'RE NOT SELLING, even WITH THE $7,500 tax credit.

Then you go on to discredit and dismiss anyone that doesn't like the car by saying "you wouldn't like anything the Big 3 put out anyways." Which is akin to saying, you JUST hate this thing because GM made it, all of your complaints are invalid, and I'm never going to change your mind because you hate GM, so I'm right, you're wrong, you "just hate GM," end of discussion.

Then you again attack the author of the original article and say that "electric companies offer a program that allows people to charge these things for $40 per day..." Again, ANOTHER PROGRAM SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT. And you use that as a POSITIVE argument FOR the car. Ridiculous...

Then you go get into an argument with Sly, AGAIN, about OTHER CAR COMPANIES INABILITY TO PRODUCE A BETTER ELECTRIC VEHICLE. You're MISSING THE PHUCKING POINT!!! We don't WANT an electric vehicle. No one is saying "BMW makes a better one," or "Honda makes a better one," we're JUST SAYING THAT THE VOLT SUCKS, PERIOD!!!

You fail to see that the current administration is in bed with this piece of junk, and you fail to see that the majority of Americans hate the damn thing. You really think that just because Obama has a low approval rating that he doesn't control any of the policy directives or "special treatment" that this thing receives? You don't think our President has any say over how this thing is marketed or, quite literally, crammed down our throats with garbage information. Hell, the President HIMSELF LIED ABOUT THIS THING. He came out and blasted all over the media that it would save $12,000 PER YEAR, PER CAR, and later came out in small, small fashion and said "oops, I meant $1,200." So, a vehicle that costs at least $10k more will save $1,200 per year, best case scenario, WHEN IT'S NEW, and it's supposed to recoup its added cost in 7 years, when the battery dies (again, the 7 years is yet ANOTHER optimistic figure... my Laptop battery and cell phone battery are lucky to last two years before HUGE power losses are noticed).

Then you proceed to go on to say that I know nothing about cars, marketing cars, building cars, etc. (again, discrediting the PERSON, not the ISSUES), and that I more or less can't comment on it. Then you proceed to say that it's "great for a limited market" (but the market is so limited that it doesn't warrant producing the car, and GM likely wouldn't produce so many, but the Federal Government has MANDATED that a certain number be produced... but that's funny, because they're not being "crammed down our throats)...

And now you want to use some awards from a country that pays $8 a gallon for gas to back your claim.

If that's what you want M2, that's fine. I've admitted that the car makes sense at $8 a gallon, but I would prefer our Federal Government keep gas in the U.S. around $3 per gallon, where it should be.

However, the fact remains that this thing doesn't make economic sense at current gas prices, and the American public generally doesn't want this thing. It has been a half a billion dollar waste at the cost of the taxpayer, and the car is a piece of sh!t, period!

All I've tried to do from the very start was to get REAL NUMBERS from people that know more about it than me. I've gotten real numbers and they STILL don't work out in the Volt's favor. YOU say you don't care if people don't like the car, but you support it at all costs. Even when the numbers don't make sense you STILL insist that it's good for some subsect of the population, and you INSIST that there's a worthy market for these things, despite tens of thousands of them sitting in lots and warehouses, unsold. How is the American public so stupid? How do they not see what you see? It must be YOU that's right, and everyone else is wrong, my bad... Carry on self-righteous one...

May 21st, 2012, 4:47 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

What you, and Sly, and anybody else out there can't seem to do, is differentiate between the POLITICS of the car and the TECHNICAL abilities of the car.

Whether or not there is a market for the car is not your concern, and means nothing in regards to the technical aspects of the car. You, and Sly have bashed the car based on one thing, the politics going on behind the scenes. How many Volts are sold has nothing to do with the engineering behind it. There are plenty of well engineered cars out there that don't sell in high numbers. It doesn't make them garbage, or crap, or whatever names you want to call them.

The article you originally posted was chock full of lies. When I rebut those claims, you say I am spouting off rambling nonsense. When I put numbers behind those claims, what am I being then? I am being informative. And by the way, the Leaf was being bashed by CO2 and myself because someone (Blueskies, I believe) said they preferred the Leaf over the Volt. That's how the Leaf entered the discussion (aside from the fact that the two vehicles are in direct competition with each other and the comparison is therefore natural).

The article speaks of the charging aspects of the car. AND WHAT DOES IT SAY? It says the car has a total capacity of 16kWh. That IS the TOTAL capacity. Then it says that the car charges at 1.61 kW per hour, thereby it takes 10 hours to charge the car. THAT IS A LIE. Which is EXACTLY why I brought up the FACTS behind the battery charging. People read articles like that and draw information from it. They will look at that and think the guy is spouting facts. He is not. Indeed, even YOU accepted some of what he said as fact, when in fact they were out and out falsehoods. So you want to crucify me for pointing out the truth? You want to consider the TRUTH as "rambling nonsense" simply because it doesn't support your claims? It makes you look bad, not me.

And then when I rebut his costs behind what he pays per kWh for electricity, it's called nonsense. When I dispute how far the car will go as a matter of total range, it's called nonsense. When I dispute his contention that after traveling 270 miles you have to wait 10 hours more to recharge the battery to continue your trip, it's called nonsense. He contended that the cost of operating the Volt per mile was 10 times that of operating a conventional car getting 30 mpg, when in fact that was PROVEN to be an outright lie. And YOU kept on bringing that aspect up. You kept on stating that it costs more per mile to operate the conventional car. It does not, and now you can't deal with that truth.

Then Sly says the car is not ready for Prime Time yet? What the Hell does that mean?? Was the Prius ready for Prime Time? Apparently so, because Toyota has sold over a million in the US. But that car gets the same tax credits, and I don't hear ANYBODY talking about the government cramming that down our throats. Why not? And like Sly said, BluRays and HDTVs didn't become popular until the price came down. But it sure as Hell didn't keep Sony or Phillips from putting those devices on the market when they were expensive. So what's the difference? The whole tax credits thing? Again...that is the POLITICS of the car, not the technical aspects of it.

I discredit YOU for not liking anything out of the Big Three, because you said it. Did you not?

It really doesn't matter if you, or Sly or anybody else doesn't want the car. That fine. Don't buy one. It doesn't mean the car shouldn't be available for those who do want it. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR PHUCKING HEAD!!! Welcome to America MFer, where people have a CHOICE!! It doesn't hurt you one bit if your neighbor, or me, or anybody else buys a Volt or doesn't buy a Volt. So why do you care?

AND WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SUBSIDIZING ANYTHING OFFERED BY THE ENERGY COMPANIES? Is it going to be the same PROOF you offered when you said Jay Leno was bashing the Volt.....but drives it every day to work and had nothing but good things to say about it? Do you want me to post that link?

And as for whether or not the car is worth producing because of the limited market, why make any small volume production car? Why make the Vette? Why does Lamborghini or Ferrari make cars?

And now you go on about the government subsidizing the retooling of the Volt assembly plant. That's POLITICS. You talk about what Obama said. That's POLITICS. You talk about the government telling GM they have to make so many of the Volts. That is POLITICS. It has NOTHING to do with the technical aspects of the car. AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT. You want to piss and moan about the tax credits? Fine, I agree with you and have said that numerous times. My only contention has been that the same complaints should point out OTHER cars getting those same tax credits. I don't recall you complaining about OTHER cars getting those tax credits. And the car isn't being crammed down your throat, because forcing a company to build x amount of cars doesn't force YOU to buy one. Period.

Now, you want to speak as to whether it makes economic sense at $3 per gallon, I agree. With the current cost of the car vs. the cost of fuel, it makes little sense to purchase the car. It also makes little sense to purchase a truck, a sports car, a convertible, etc. That still doesn't make the car a piece of sh!t, as you say.

And please, tell me these REAL NUMBERS you speak of. Because the only numbers I've seen you spewing is the same garbage the a$$hole who wrote the original article spewed. That was proven wrong, and you attempted to discredit Snopes (and me) despite evidence to the contrary.

So don't spread this fertilizer about "All I've tried to do from the very start was to get REAL NUMBERS from people that know more about it than me". You got real numbers, and argued them. You wanted nothing more than a platform to complain about the Volt.

Tell me, why isn't the American public buying Corvettes in greater numbers? Why aren't they buying Vipers in greater numbers? Why aren't they buying a BMW 7 series in greater numbers? Well, I guess because the American public isn't, those cars must be sh!t too, huh?It must be YOU who knows what's best for everyone else. Therefore, you should be put in charge, to determine what cars should be ALLOWED to be marketed to the American public, because only YOU (and Sly) know what's best for the American public. After all, the American public shouldn't be allowed to make their own choice, when you can choose for them. Isn't that right?

Glad to see the movie about your life dream has finally come out...."The Dictator".

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

May 21st, 2012, 6:13 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

m2karateman wrote:

What you, and Sly, and anybody else out there can't seem to do, is differentiate between the POLITICS of the car and the TECHNICAL abilities of the car.

No, what YOU can't seem to differentiate is that, even though the Volt is the best EV out there right now, it's STILL not practical and cost effective with today's gas prices, period! This thing couldn't, and wouldn't survive without the tax subsidies, and it should be let to die, just as the MARKET IS DICTATING.

m2karateman wrote:

Whether or not there is a market for the car is not your concern, and means nothing in regards to the technical aspects of the car.

Wrong, and I don't care...

Wrong, meaning, when MY tax dollars are funding the PRODUCTION of this thing, and MANDATING that a certain number are being produced AND NO ONE WANTS THEM, it IS my concern. If GM wants to build them on their own, out of their pocket, and hope they sell or reduce the price of the car until they sell, that's on them. However, as long as tax dollars are being used to fund this thing I have every right to complain about it.

I don't care what the "technical aspects" of the car are. It's a piece of poop, meaning it doesn't make sense to buy one, period. It's impossible to recover the $10k+ that it costs over a similarly situated hybrid or even plain fuel efficient vehicle over the life of the car. The technology, though advanced, is currently worthless.

m2karateman wrote:

You, and Sly have bashed the car based on one thing, the politics going on behind the scenes.

No, I've bashed it based on it not making financial sense to own one, and the fact that my tax dollars are being used to fund this debacle. You only hear "one thing" because YOU think the thing is great, when it is junk, flat out.

m2karateman wrote:

How many Volts are sold has nothing to do with the engineering behind it. There are plenty of well engineered cars out there that don't sell in high numbers. It doesn't make them garbage, or crap, or whatever names you want to call them.

Who cares about the engineering behind it? Again, you attribute YOUR WORTH on the project as more than the cars contribution to the public. The PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT IT, period!

m2karateman wrote:

The article you originally posted was chock full of lies.

As I said it may be, and I asked for additional information.

m2karateman wrote:

When I rebut those claims, you say I am spouting off rambling nonsense.

No, what you did was created this erroneous argument that the Leaf is a bigger POS, but NO ONE CARES ABOUT THE LEAF. They're both junk! Are you happy now?

You did accurately attack the authors price of electricity, but that's what he actually pays (or near). If you look up the rates in NY they're something like $0.97 or some ridiculous number, and I don't doubt that buildings up-charge for services and maintenance. However, even with YOUR NUMBERS the car still doesn't work financially.

I'm not perpetuating lies, telling lies, posting lies, etc. as you CLAIM I'm doing. I use YOUR NUMBERS AGAINST YOU AND THAT POS CAR, period.

m2karateman wrote:

When I put numbers behind those claims, what am I being then? I am being informative. And by the way, the Leaf was being bashed by CO2 and myself because someone (Blueskies, I believe) said they preferred the Leaf over the Volt. That's how the Leaf entered the discussion (aside from the fact that the two vehicles are in direct competition with each other and the comparison is therefore natural).

Even your real numbers DON'T WORK! THAT'S THE POINT.

m2karateman wrote:

The article speaks of the charging aspects of the car. AND WHAT DOES IT SAY? It says the car has a total capacity of 16kWh. That IS the TOTAL capacity. Then it says that the car charges at 1.61 kW per hour, thereby it takes 10 hours to charge the car. THAT IS A LIE. Which is EXACTLY why I brought up the FACTS behind the battery charging. People read articles like that and draw information from it. They will look at that and think the guy is spouting facts. He is not. Indeed, even YOU accepted some of what he said as fact, when in fact they were out and out falsehoods. So you want to crucify me for pointing out the truth? You want to consider the TRUTH as "rambling nonsense" simply because it doesn't support your claims? It makes you look bad, not me.

I don't think it is a lie, I think it was a misconception and fuzzy math by someone that was/is disgruntled about his experience with the Volt and the fact that his tax dollars are funding the damn thing, period. You quibble about the extra 5-10% being left in the battery, or whatever it is, but the fact remains that MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE that the battery TECHNICALLY has some "charge" left to it, it's PHUCKING DEAD in most people's minds.

I didn't accept ANYTHING he said as fact, I simply asked people to refute it, and when you refute it with some technical garbage that NO ONE CARES ABOUT, you get pissy. You tell someone that can't make a phone call on their cell phone that their battery isn't "technically dead" and they'll tell you to get phucked. That's the bottom line. Did he assume with his limited experience and technical ability that the battery was dead? Sure, did he base some of his math off of that assumption, sure. But to call it a "lie" is just as irresponsible. The guy was stating HIS CASE, albeit erroneously, but it was HIS CASE, and I guaranty you he believed it. That's not to say that he was "right," but it IS to say at least that he's not a liar.

m2karateman wrote:

And then when I rebut his costs behind what he pays per kWh for electricity, it's called nonsense. When I dispute how far the car will go as a matter of total range, it's called nonsense. When I dispute his contention that after traveling 270 miles you have to wait 10 hours more to recharge the battery to continue your trip, it's called nonsense. He contended that the cost of operating the Volt per mile was 10 times that of operating a conventional car getting 30 mpg, when in fact that was PROVEN to be an outright lie. And YOU kept on bringing that aspect up. You kept on stating that it costs more per mile to operate the conventional car. It does not, and now you can't deal with that truth.

Show me where I call "nonsense" your range capabilities or kWh claims. Go back and show me, because I don't think I did, ever.

Your second claim is flat out bullsh!t. I didn't "keep bringing up" that it costs more than a conventional car to operate. I did do the math wrong, or read the article on snopes wrong and THOUGHT that it was saying that the Volt cost $0.07 per mile more, when it was saying that a conventional car cost $0.07 more to operate. That's it! It was a simple mis-read, and you jump all over it and say "you can't handle the truth!!!" That's flat out ridiculous.

Still, however, even with the $0.07 savings the car STILL DOESN'T"T MAKE SENSE, and THAT'S what YOU can't handle.

m2karateman wrote:

Then Sly says the car is not ready for Prime Time yet? What the Hell does that mean??

It means that even being the most advanced EV it still only fits an extremely limited market that makes the thing not profitable to produce. THAT'S what it means. It means that it's STILL having technical problems/design problems that can cause it to blow up after an accident. THAT'S what it means.

m2karateman wrote:

Was the Prius ready for Prime Time? Apparently so, because Toyota has sold over a million in the US.

Exactly, it was ready and it IS selling. The same can't be said about the Volt.

m2karateman wrote:

But that car gets the same tax credits, and I don't hear ANYBODY talking about the government cramming that down our throats.

I'm not happy about the Prius tax credit either, but AT LEAST PEOPLE WANT THEM, and AT LEAST PEOPLE ARE BUYING THEM!

The Prius doesn't exist under the same umbrella as the Volt. The Federal Govt. didn't loan Toyota $300 million to build the factory to build the Volt, the Federal Govt. didn't "bail out" Toyota to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and the Federal Government isn't MANDATING how many Prius' Toyota does. The Federal Govt. doesn't stand on a platform and champion the Prius while shoving it down our throats. There's a HUGE difference between the cost and market for the Prius v the Volt. Stop acting like there isn't.

m2karateman wrote:

BluRays and HDTVs didn't become popular until the price came down. But it sure as Hell didn't keep Sony or Phillips from putting those devices on the market when they were expensive. So what's the difference?

The difference is it was a private company doing it without tax dollars, period.

m2karateman wrote:

The whole tax credits thing? Again...that is the POLITICS of the car, not the technical aspects of it.

Not just tax credit, tax funding, bailing out GM, etc. to the tune of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

m2karateman wrote:

I discredit YOU for not liking anything out of the Big Three, because you said it. Did you not?

No, actually I didn't. YOU put those words into my post because YOU can't see how and why people don't like the Volt. YOU discredit and dismiss people that don't agree with you, because YOU can't get it, congratulations.

m2karateman wrote:

It really doesn't matter if you, or Sly or anybody else doesn't want the car. That fine. Don't buy one. It doesn't mean the car shouldn't be available for those who do want it.

BULLSHIT! Not when my tax dollars are being gobbled up by this damn thing... GET THAT THROUGH YOUR PHUCKING HEAD!!!

m2karateman wrote:

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR PHUCKING HEAD!!! Welcome to America MFer, where people have a CHOICE!! It doesn't hurt you one bit if your neighbor, or me, or anybody else buys a Volt or doesn't buy a Volt. So why do you care?

This isn't a choice jackass, the people HAVE chosen and they've said that this thing isn't worthy of THEIR MONEY, even IF the Federal Government is picking up a 1/3 of the tab. These things are rotting in grave yards all over the US, because AMERICAN'S MADE A CHOICE NOT TO BUY THEM.

m2karateman wrote:

AND WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS SUBSIDIZING ANYTHING OFFERED BY THE ENERGY COMPANIES?

Is it going to be the same PROOF you offered when you said Jay Leno was bashing the Volt.....but drives it every day to work and had nothing but good things to say about it? Do you want me to post that link?

You look it up, whenever you click on anything from Jay Leno it takes you to some "celebrity chin profile" garbage page, but the fact remains, he still made fun of the thing exploding. When asked how he likes his Volt he replied "Well I like things that roll, explode and make noise... I mean... uhh... its a fun car to drive."

m2karateman wrote:

And as for whether or not the car is worth producing because of the limited market, why make any small volume production car? Why make the Vette? Why does Lamborghini or Ferrari make cars?

I have no problem with small market cars, as long as they are PROFITABLE and PEOPLE WANT THEM. That can't be said about the Volt, period.

m2karateman wrote:

And now you go on about the government subsidizing the retooling of the Volt assembly plant. That's POLITICS. You talk about what Obama said. That's POLITICS. You talk about the government telling GM they have to make so many of the Volts. That is POLITICS. It has NOTHING to do with the technical aspects of the car. AND THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT. You want to piss and moan about the tax credits? Fine, I agree with you and have said that numerous times. My only contention has been that the same complaints should point out OTHER cars getting those same tax credits. I don't recall you complaining about OTHER cars getting those tax credits. And the car isn't being crammed down your throat, because forcing a company to build x amount of cars doesn't force YOU to buy one. Period.

You call it "politics" but it isn't politics at all... It's REAL TAX MONEY. It's not some political bickering or bureaucratic garbage that I don't like about this car, it's that it eats tax dollars like they're going out of style. THAT'S what bothers me.

m2karateman wrote:

Now, you want to speak as to whether it makes economic sense at $3 per gallon, I agree. With the current cost of the car vs. the cost of fuel, it makes little sense to purchase the car. It also makes little sense to purchase a truck, a sports car, a convertible, etc. That still doesn't make the car a piece of sh!t, as you say.

No, YOU may think that it makes little sense to purchase a sports car, truck, or convertible, but the GENERAL PUBLIC disagrees. Full-size pickup trucks are still of the BEST SELLERS in the country. I'm an American "MFer!" and I LIKE people to have a choice, but that DOESN'T MEAN that our tax dollars should INVOLUNTARILY go toward producing a car that WE GENERALLY DON'T WANT!

m2karateman wrote:

And please, tell me these REAL NUMBERS you speak of. Because the only numbers I've seen you spewing is the same garbage the a$$hole who wrote the original article spewed. That was proven wrong, and you attempted to discredit Snopes (and me) despite evidence to the contrary.

The Volt saves around $1000 per year, Barry O is optimistic at $1,200, so we'll use that. We all know these batteries don't last 10 years, or even 7 before they have a SERIOUS DROP OFF IN POWER. AT BEST it's going to take nearly ALL of the 10 years, at peak optimum performance to RECOUP the additional $10k these things cost more than conventional vehicles. The car will be depreciated and junk by the time the Buyer recovers its cost. Hell, even the IRS only lets you depreciate a car for 7 years before the damn thing is written off as worthless.

m2karateman wrote:

So don't spread this fertilizer about "All I've tried to do from the very start was to get REAL NUMBERS from people that know more about it than me". You got real numbers, and argued them. You wanted nothing more than a platform to complain about the Volt.

I've gotten real numbers and came to the same conclusion that most American's have, the car is junk and it doesn't make financial sense to buy one.

m2karateman wrote:

Tell me, why isn't the American public buying Corvettes in greater numbers?

That's funny, because, actually, they are. Vette sales are up 11% over the previous year.

m2karateman wrote:

Why aren't they buying Vipers in greater numbers?

IDK? Possibly because Dodge QUIT MAKING THE PHUCKING THING WHEN THE ECONOMY WENT BAD, just like they should have, and now that there's a demand for them they're going to START BUILDING THEM AGAIN THIS YEAR.

See M2, that's what REAL car companies do that aren't subsidized by the government. They let the market dictate what they build, and when it profitable they build that car, and when it's not they stop. GM should take note.

m2karateman wrote:

Why aren't they buying a BMW 7 series in greater numbers?

The 7 series is more or less replaced with the newer 625s, 645s, and 650s, but they still make their lines of cars and BMW is one of the most profitable car companies in the world. I don't think anyone from GM should be picking on BMW for ANYTHING any time soon.

m2karateman wrote:

It must be YOU who knows what's best for everyone else.

They're the ones deciding not to buy the damn thing, don't get bent at me!

m2karateman wrote:

Therefore, you should be put in charge, to determine what cars should be ALLOWED to be marketed to the American public, because only YOU (and Sly) know what's best for the American public.

No, not at all... It's the market that is the dictator, M2. Perhaps you haven't gotten that yet, or perhaps you're loving the government handouts at your work so much that you've forgotten what it means to be American and Capitalist?

m2karateman wrote:

After all, the American public shouldn't be allowed to make their own choice, when you can choose for them. Isn't that right?

The American public has chosen, which is my biggest piece of evidence that you're wrong on this matter.

m2karateman wrote:

Glad to see the movie about your life dream has finally come out...."The Dictator".

Ridiculous... The power is in the people, and the market, and they have spoken!

May 22nd, 2012, 1:27 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4006Location: Davison Mi

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

for the love of the flying spagetti monster!

We just lost Sly because he chose to be intollerant of other peoples opinion. Like him or not he was a valuable member of this board and we are now lesser with him gone. can we look at that as an example of how we need to try and understand each other instead of spouting the same thing over and over and over add nauseum

Fact is M2k is right about the fact that you two arnt even arguing about the same thing anymore. But you sure are doing a god job about making it personal and attacking each other..(for what purpose???)

you guys are BOTH right in your argument...but you so damned detrmined to one up the other you fail to see the other guys point. Let me see if I can summarize your convo from a third party so you guys can stop the nonsense and move on to being more productive. (forgive me if I misunderstood either of you)

WJB: You HATE the fact that tax dollars are going towards a vehicle that is overpiced and not very practicle for the average american. A respctable and valid Argument.

M2K: you understand that the vehicle needs improvement to be accepted by the general public but stand on the fact that no matter where the money comes from to fund the vehicle, it is sound and actually fairly impressive with the technology available TODAY, and the possabilites of tomorrow are very bright indeed.

Do you guys not see how you are BARELY arguing about the same thing?

Wjb, Are you aware that your argument was had back in the 1800's about the railways? no one could afford train tickets when that technology was new, but (for better or worse) the government backed a new technology for the betterment of all. Same for the early 1900's with early ocean liners. So while when new tech comes out it may beninfeirior to whats our there, or be more xpensive, the plans are more for long term thinking. Hopefully the electric Car follows the same path of the railways and steel vessels...it may not...no one truely knows....but werent those new technologies worth investing in long term? isn't it POSSIBLE that this could end the same way? Today you are correct that the car doesn't go far enough on a charge...but what about tomorrow? and the day after? are you under the impression that the tech will NEVER get better? and as you have already stated that without the funding this car is DOA....so how do we get that better tech tomorrow without the help today?

Mike: Awards overseas do not mean excellence, the french still think Jerry Lewis is awsome...and the Germans Idolize the cheesburger stuffing drunken Hoff..so Im glad the car is getting recognized and will hopefully start getting a sales boost overseas to aliviate the burden the tax payers are shelling out, but alas Europeans do not set the standard for what is acceptable here. So while I applaud the work you've done so far...you definately have more cut out for you untill the car can meet the needs of a broader audience.

Either start understanding each other and evolve the conversation, quit this silliness altogether, or keep beating you heads against each other and see whos more stubborn...those are your options boys...pick one.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

May 23rd, 2012, 11:18 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

regularjoe12 wrote:

for the love of the flying spagetti monster!

We just lost Sly because he chose to be intollerant of other peoples opinion. Like him or not he was a valuable member of this board and we are now lesser with him gone. can we look at that as an example of how we need to try and understand each other instead of spouting the same thing over and over and over add nauseum

Fact is M2k is right about the fact that you two arnt even arguing about the same thing anymore. But you sure are doing a god job about making it personal and attacking each other..(for what purpose???)

you guys are BOTH right in your argument...but you so damned detrmined to one up the other you fail to see the other guys point. Let me see if I can summarize your convo from a third party so you guys can stop the nonsense and move on to being more productive. (forgive me if I misunderstood either of you)

WJB: You HATE the fact that tax dollars are going towards a vehicle that is overpiced and not very practicle for the average american. A respctable and valid Argument.

M2K: you understand that the vehicle needs improvement to be accepted by the general public but stand on the fact that no matter where the money comes from to fund the vehicle, it is sound and actually fairly impressive with the technology available TODAY, and the possabilites of tomorrow are very bright indeed.

Do you guys not see how you are BARELY arguing about the same thing?

Wjb, Are you aware that your argument was had back in the 1800's about the railways? no one could afford train tickets when that technology was new, but (for better or worse) the government backed a new technology for the betterment of all. Same for the early 1900's with early ocean liners. So while when new tech comes out it may beninfeirior to whats our there, or be more xpensive, the plans are more for long term thinking. Hopefully the electric Car follows the same path of the railways and steel vessels...it may not...no one truely knows....but werent those new technologies worth investing in long term? isn't it POSSIBLE that this could end the same way? Today you are correct that the car doesn't go far enough on a charge...but what about tomorrow? and the day after? are you under the impression that the tech will NEVER get better? and as you have already stated that without the funding this car is DOA....so how do we get that better tech tomorrow without the help today?

Mike: Awards overseas do not mean excellence, the french still think Jerry Lewis is awsome...and the Germans Idolize the cheesburger stuffing drunken Hoff..so Im glad the car is getting recognized and will hopefully start getting a sales boost overseas to aliviate the burden the tax payers are shelling out, but alas Europeans do not set the standard for what is acceptable here. So while I applaud the work you've done so far...you definately have more cut out for you untill the car can meet the needs of a broader audience.

Either start understanding each other and evolve the conversation, quit this silliness altogether, or keep beating you heads against each other and see whos more stubborn...those are your options boys...pick one.

RJ, I hope you can see that I've been arguing the same point all along, and that my argument has never wavered. What's maddening on here (I'm guessing for both myself and Sly, and others) is that people REFUSE to engage you on the merits of your argument and they go off on some tangent. M2 has created several tangental arguments and stomped his feet and shouted FACT, FACT, FACT, but everything he says doesn't over-come the burden of making this thing financially viable.

I've been saying from the beginning that I appreciate the tech going into the thing, and I appreciate the research being done, and I too think that ONE DAY it could prove useful, it's just not THIS day.

Railroad companies eventually worked because there was an initially high start up cost visa vi infrastructure, and a relatively low operating cost. Eventually the investors re-couped the cost of their initial investment, and the cost of tickets went down. The same can't really be said for the Volt. However, if you want a more analogous example, you could probably use the computer. Initially in the 60's, 70's and in the early 80's these things were so big and so expensive that literally few to no private owners had them. The tech got better, they got smaller and the wealthy started purchasing them. The tech evolved some more, they got better, they got more practical, they got CHEAPER, and more people started owning them. Now they're common place.

That said, what the govt. is doing is forcing the production, to the tune of thousands, of vehicles that simply aren't fiscally responsible. Meaning, the technology isn't advanced enough to make it practical to use. Sure, they save a miniscule amount at current gas prices, but gas prices SHOULD go down (if we elect a Republican). Most experts think that gas should be around $2.99 a gallon right now, or slightly less. Gas prices are artificially inflated by the U.S. having a moratorium on offshore drilling, a refusal to open up new drilling sites, and what I would call petty conflicts in the Middle East. That price mechanism should be fairly stable for years, but I do agree that we need another viable alternative.

I'm not opposed to EVs, at all. In fact, I think it's a great idea to never have to go to the pump, to be able to get your "gas" at home, and save money and emissions in the process. However, with current electricity production coming by way of 70%+ by coal fired plants, the relative price of gas, and the state of EV technology, it's just not feasible right now. You know how I know it's not? Because the market is telling us so. The EV tech cost X amount of dollars and over the realistic useful cycle of the car you can't SAVE enough to cover the difference. Financially they simply do not make sense right now, period. The tech can be wonderful and amazing, but it literally doesn't make CENTS to buy it at this point in time.

Now, if GM wants to produce these things without tax credits and ship them to Brittan, where gas is $8 a gallon, that's AWESOME! I hope to send them out by the freighter full, but that doesn't mean our government should force them upon us here, where they're clearly not wanted or useful.

May 24th, 2012, 12:48 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

wjb21ndtown wrote:

The cars are sh!t because the cars are sh!t, period. I don't mind non-plugin hybrids, at all. In fact, I think they're great. I just can't stand the Volt or these electric vehicles that are WORSE than gas only vehicles.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I've been saying from the beginning that I appreciate the tech going into the thing, and I appreciate the research being done, and I too think that ONE DAY it could prove useful, it's just not THIS day.

So calling the cars junk, garbage, crap or sh!t, as seen in the first quote, is to be taken as an appreciation for the tech going into the vehicle? Wow.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now, if GM wants to produce these things without tax credits and ship them to [Britain], where gas is $8 a gallon, that's AWESOME! I hope to send them out by the freighter full, but that doesn't mean our government should force them upon us here, where they're clearly not wanted or useful.

And that is something that GM is starting to do. However, they began the life of the Volt by releasing them in a very small market, then expanded to more states in 2012.

I am done discussing this with you wjb, because you simply refuse to properly speak yourself. You say things, then back track and say other things (as evidenced above and in other numerous statements in this thread). You do it here, and in other threads as well. I'm not the only one who feels that way either. If you want to call the Volt junk, fine. Your opinion matters zero to me.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

May 24th, 2012, 1:50 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2347

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

Where I am Coming From: I have done 0 research on EV tech, hybrid tech / etc, but am looking at buying a fuel efficient car to replace my wifes dying 02 corolla and was just about to start research EV vs Hybrid vs Compact Fuel Efficient ICE when I stumbled on this thread yesterday. I just finished reading the whole thing.

My Thoughts after reading: 1st Let me say RJ Destroyed this thread. m2K and wjb are not arguing the same point at all. Both are valid in Most of their comments, however As I read I found myself siding with M2K because he had facts to back up his viewpoints and while he may be biased/homer about the vehicle his pros were based on #s and not opinions such as "poop/Crap/etc". That said WJB is 100% right that it is not a viable car for the average american, YET. That just means it is slightly overpriced however, not that it is poop or bad in any way shape or form.

Specific Comments:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

M2 has created several tangental arguments and stomped his feet and shouted FACT, FACT, FACT, but everything he says doesn't over-come the burden of making this thing financially viable.

M2 was replying to your post about the fuzzy math article. It wasnt a tangential argument. Yes he got overzealous in his defense and obviously both of you are frustrated, but the argument here was the Quality of this particular EV , the volt, and that is what M2 was arguing. The Tangential argument was that of whether or not the pricepoint is worth it for the avg american to consider and EV for FINANCIAL REASONS. And while you were right that it is not, there are other reasons that it is worth it for Some to consider the car, or it wouldnt be selling at all. Its pretty blatantsly obiovus that the sales of this car are being impacted politically on both sides, but based on the vitriol the "republican" side has about this car, id say the political sway is hurting this vehicle way more than it is helping. In a Polkitical vacuum i THINK it would be selling better.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I've been saying from the beginning that I appreciate the tech going into the thing, and I appreciate the research being done, and I too think that ONE DAY it could prove useful, it's just not THIS day.

While you may feel you got this point across in this thread, you didnt. Your point was pretty clear that the Volt is "Crap/poop/etc" , and only late into it did you admit it was only because it doesnt make sense from a cost perspective (again which doesnt make it poop, just overpriced).

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Railroad companies eventually worked because there was an initially high start up cost visa vi infrastructure, and a relatively low operating cost. Eventually the investors re-couped the cost of their initial investment, and the cost of tickets went down. The same can't really be said for the Volt.

Mass producing the technology and getting the public used to it is by far the best way to bring down the cost and further advance the technology, at least based on my understanding of the evoluton of machines/technology in history.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

However, if you want a more analogous example, you could probably use the computer. Initially in the 60's, 70's and in the early 80's these things were so big and so expensive that literally few to no private owners had them. The tech got better, they got smaller and the wealthy started purchasing them. The tech evolved some more, they got better, they got more practical, they got CHEAPER, and more people started owning them. Now they're common place.

Exactly. And how did they get there. Not by 1 company doing R&D on 1 piece of equipment as a test somewhere. It was because Big Companies paid for these huge machines and utilized them, and as they got better they bought more. They were incrementally introduced to the marketplace which caused a cycle to start of [Make Product better > Sell More > Encouragement to continue making product > Sell More > etc]. Since Big Business isnt going to rock this technology as it is more applicable to the home commuter we need the public involved to push the tech forward.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That said, what the govt. is doing is forcing the production, to the tune of thousands, of vehicles that simply aren't fiscally responsible. Meaning, the technology isn't advanced enough to make it practical to use. Sure, they save a miniscule amount at current gas prices, but gas prices SHOULD go down (if we elect a Republican). Most experts think that gas should be around $2.99 a gallon right now, or slightly less. Gas prices are artificially inflated by the U.S. having a moratorium on offshore drilling, a refusal to open up new drilling sites, and what I would call petty conflicts in the Middle East. That price mechanism should be fairly stable for years, but I do agree that we need another viable alternative.

Fairly salient points other than the whole "Gas will go down". You are smoking WAY too much Elephant Weed if you think that voting a repub intopresident will make any real difference to the cost of gasoline in this country. If you really buy that then they already have you hook line and sinker. (Please note I am leaning towards voting republican, so im not ointing this out as an anti-Repub concept).

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I'm not opposed to EVs, at all. In fact, I think it's a great idea to never have to go to the pump, to be able to get your "gas" at home, and save money and emissions in the process. However, with current electricity production coming by way of 70%+ by coal fired plants, the relative price of gas, and the state of EV technology, it's just not feasible right now. You know how I know it's not? Because the market is telling us so. The EV tech cost X amount of dollars and over the realistic useful cycle of the car you can't SAVE enough to cover the difference. Financially they simply do not make sense right now, period. The tech can be wonderful and amazing, but it literally doesn't make CENTS to buy it at this point in time.

More decent points, however the bolded part is ridiculous. Lets start with the old "If everyone was jumping off a bridge......" and go right on to the point that The market doesnt know what products are good, just like they dont know what politicians are good and what they will do once elected. People are way more caught up with what Celeb got caught doing something stupid by TMZ or which $300 pair of sunglasses that cost $10 to make they should buy next, etc ad nauseum. If you look to what the general market bears out , when that general market is the common man, you will end up being a sucker your entire life.

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now, if GM wants to produce these things without tax credits and ship them to Brittan, where gas is $8 a gallon, that's AWESOME! I hope to send them out by the freighter full, but that doesn't mean our government should force them upon us here, where they're clearly not wanted or useful.

[/quote]

Still agree with you that the tax credits shouldnt be given for any of these cars, and that targetting areas with High gas cost is very logical, but again that isnt GMs Fault or an indictment of the car at all. Considering the stat is out that the average volt owner makes 170k annually, it is probably safe to assume that remove the tax credit would likely have had little impact on the average purchaser making that choice.

My Conclusion:

As much as i like the idea, and have tried talking myself into a greener footprint and "gas free driving" for the wife to her office which is 17 miles from our condo... I think I am leaning towards the cheapest 4 door High Gas Mileage compact ICE just based on cost. BUt I will still factor the volt in with its cost-savings benefits when I calculate "Overall Cost" for 3 years.

May 24th, 2012, 6:11 pm

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

m2karateman wrote:

So calling the cars junk, garbage, crap or sh!t, as seen in the first quote, is to be taken as an appreciation for the tech going into the vehicle? Wow.

Yes, the car is junk, the technology going into the car is impressive. Get it? That's as plain as I can put it for you.

Until the technology reaches a point where it can stand on its own and is financially viable to purchase it the thing shouldn't be mass produced, and the market shouldn't be manipulated with taxpayer dollars to fund the thing.

The current state of the Volt is like saying, "HEY! I have this great invention that drains your bank account! Wonna buy one!?" Like I said, the car as it stands, is junk.

m2karateman wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now, if GM wants to produce these things without tax credits and ship them to [Britain], where gas is $8 a gallon, that's AWESOME! I hope to send them out by the freighter full, but that doesn't mean our government should force them upon us here, where they're clearly not wanted or useful.

And that is something that GM is starting to do. However, they began the life of the Volt by releasing them in a very small market, then expanded to more states in 2012.

I am done discussing this with you wjb, because you simply refuse to properly speak yourself. You say things, then back track and say other things (as evidenced above and in other numerous statements in this thread). You do it here, and in other threads as well. I'm not the only one who feels that way either. If you want to call the Volt junk, fine. Your opinion matters zero to me.

Sure, they started small, but I don't care about that M2. The bottom line is that these things don't have a viable enough market to produce them in a capacity that allows them to even break even, let alone turn a profit, period. Not for the government's mandate of their production, the $7,500 tax credit, the hundreds of millions being shelled out for charging stations and govt. sponsored electricity, and the BILLIONS handed to GM to bail out the UAW, these things wouldn't be produced. That's the whole point.

May 25th, 2012, 11:23 am

wjb21ndtown

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

DJ-B wrote:

Where I am Coming From: I have done 0 research on EV tech, hybrid tech / etc, but am looking at buying a fuel efficient car to replace my wifes dying 02 corolla and was just about to start research EV vs Hybrid vs Compact Fuel Efficient ICE when I stumbled on this thread yesterday. I just finished reading the whole thing.

My Thoughts after reading: 1st Let me say RJ Destroyed this thread. m2K and wjb are not arguing the same point at all. Both are valid in Most of their comments, however As I read I found myself siding with M2K because he had facts to back up his viewpoints and while he may be biased/homer about the vehicle his pros were based on #s and not opinions such as "poop/Crap/etc". That said WJB is 100% right that it is not a viable car for the average american, YET. That just means it is slightly overpriced however, not that it is poop or bad in any way shape or form.

Understood that my criticism may seem over the top to you, but just understand that until this thing makes sense (i.e. you can actually save more money than it costs over the relative life cycle of the vehicle), IMO it's garbage. It's like a unique little novelty, and not something that should be purchased for $35k with the govt. kicking in $7,500, and millions elsewhere. IF this thing made financial sense I wouldn't mind the govt. footing the bill for elect charging stations etc, but the technology hasn't reached a state where it SHOULD be mass produced yet, and that's what the market is telling us. The govt. is FORCING the mass production, literally, and shoving these things onto the market and "the people" aren't happy with it. How do we know? Because they're voting with their pocketbooks not to buy the damn thing.

DJ-B wrote:

Specific Comments:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

M2 has created several tangental arguments and stomped his feet and shouted FACT, FACT, FACT, but everything he says doesn't over-come the burden of making this thing financially viable.

M2 was replying to your post about the fuzzy math article. It wasnt a tangential argument. Yes he got overzealous in his defense and obviously both of you are frustrated, but the argument here was the Quality of this particular EV , the volt, and that is what M2 was arguing. The Tangential argument was that of whether or not the pricepoint is worth it for the avg american to consider and EV for FINANCIAL REASONS. And while you were right that it is not, there are other reasons that it is worth it for Some to consider the car, or it wouldnt be selling at all. Its pretty blatantsly obiovus that the sales of this car are being impacted politically on both sides, but based on the vitriol the "republican" side has about this car, id say the political sway is hurting this vehicle way more than it is helping. In a Polkitical vacuum i THINK it would be selling better.

When I'm talking to someone about the Volt, and all they want to do is talk about the Leaf, I'm going to call that a tangential argument. It wasn't until page 3 or so that he started with any factual based argument, and even at that, he never showed the car to be financially viable. Why? Because he can't. The thing flat out doesn't make financial sense. That really is the beginning and end of it.

If some rich people want to buy this thing to feel better about themselves and their "carbon footprint," more power to them, but the government shouldn't be creating a false market for these things when all they're doing is eating money.

In re: "Political vacuum it would sell better" - I can't agree. There's flat out no way to market these things better, and no way to "sell" the public on the Volt, because they don't make financial sense. IMO that's the whole argument of Reps. that don't like this thing. I know people like to make "big oil" arguments, that the Reps. are in bed with the oil companies and that because of that relationship they'll bash anything that reduces the consumption of oil.

To that I say "prove it!" Not prove the argument, but quite literally, build something that makes financial sense and see if they get behind it. The Volt currently doesn't do that, so the point and the argument is moot.

I don't think this thing sells better in a political vacuum because there's no way to show that over the life of the car the buyer is going to SAVE money, and there's nothing unique about the design/function of this thing that makes it sell otherwise. (other than reduced emissions, and even that's debatable given that our electricity comes from coal for the most part)

DJ-B wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I've been saying from the beginning that I appreciate the tech going into the thing, and I appreciate the research being done, and I too think that ONE DAY it could prove useful, it's just not THIS day.

While you may feel you got this point across in this thread, you didnt. Your point was pretty clear that the Volt is "Crap/poop/etc" , and only late into it did you admit it was only because it doesnt make sense from a cost perspective (again which doesnt make it poop, just overpriced).

But DJ, the "car" is "overpriced" because the "tech" going into it, the cost of producing it, and the materials that go into it dictate a price that is outside the realm of its worth to the general public. There is literally no way to make this thing at a price that people want to pay for it. That's the whole point, and that's what makes it junk. If you have this great thing that costs more to produce than you can sell it for, the idea and the product, for practical consideration, is junk for the time being.

I started off explaining that I appreciate the EV tech, the concept of the volt, etc. I started off saying that I don't have any problems with the government funding research, design, etc. of the car and the technology. That IS appreciation for the tech that goes into this thing. My issue is that the government isn't pouring their money into making this thing cheaper, or getting it to go further without a charge, or getting it to run on less gas when operating the generator, they're pouring money into producing a car that ISN'T READY FOR PRODUCTION from a technical standpoint. From that standpoint the car is impractical and garbage.

DJ-B wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Railroad companies eventually worked because there was an initially high start up cost visa vi infrastructure, and a relatively low operating cost. Eventually the investors re-couped the cost of their initial investment, and the cost of tickets went down. The same can't really be said for the Volt.

Mass producing the technology and getting the public used to it is by far the best way to bring down the cost and further advance the technology, at least based on my understanding of the evoluton of machines/technology in history.

I disagree. It's research and development that is going to make this thing more practical, not chipping away at design/production costs. This thing needs to get at least 50% more mileage out of its charge to be practical for the average consumer. Instead of engineers dedicating their time and resources toward making that happen, they're dedicating their time and resources toward getting it ready for production when it's not ready. M2 would likely say "you fool, GM IS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT," but that argument doesn't hold water. GM employs X amount of engineers and they dedicate them toward various tasks, and the fact is that engineers that are dedicated toward designing and producing this thing COULD be dedicated toward making it worthwhile, when it currently is not.

DJ-B wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

However, if you want a more analogous example, you could probably use the computer. Initially in the 60's, 70's and in the early 80's these things were so big and so expensive that literally few to no private owners had them. The tech got better, they got smaller and the wealthy started purchasing them. The tech evolved some more, they got better, they got more practical, they got CHEAPER, and more people started owning them. Now they're common place.

Exactly. And how did they get there. Not by 1 company doing R&D on 1 piece of equipment as a test somewhere. It was because Big Companies paid for these huge machines and utilized them, and as they got better they bought more. They were incrementally introduced to the marketplace which caused a cycle to start of [Make Product better > Sell More > Encouragement to continue making product > Sell More > etc]. Since Big Business isnt going to rock this technology as it is more applicable to the home commuter we need the public involved to push the tech forward.

DJ, the technology came before the "market." It was the ability of new machines, new products, new ideas that CREATED the new market, not the other way around. In the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's people weren't thinking "hey, I would really like a home CPU." That idea seemed crazy. Computers were big, bulky, super expensive and impractical. It wasn't until someone DESIGNED a smaller, better, more practical machine that the CPU market was created. Not the other way around.

DJ-B wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That said, what the govt. is doing is forcing the production, to the tune of thousands, of vehicles that simply aren't fiscally responsible. Meaning, the technology isn't advanced enough to make it practical to use. Sure, they save a miniscule amount at current gas prices, but gas prices SHOULD go down (if we elect a Republican). Most experts think that gas should be around $2.99 a gallon right now, or slightly less. Gas prices are artificially inflated by the U.S. having a moratorium on offshore drilling, a refusal to open up new drilling sites, and what I would call petty conflicts in the Middle East. That price mechanism should be fairly stable for years, but I do agree that we need another viable alternative.

Fairly salient points other than the whole "Gas will go down". You are smoking WAY too much Elephant Weed if you think that voting a repub intopresident will make any real difference to the cost of gasoline in this country. If you really buy that then they already have you hook line and sinker. (Please note I am leaning towards voting republican, so im not ointing this out as an anti-Repub concept).

The current administration stated that it was THEIR GOAL to raise gas prices, and POOF, they went up. We currently have a moratorium over drilling in the Gulf until 2013, which helped to artificially raise gas prices.

Now, you could argue that now that we're use to paying $3.89 a gallon there's no way that Reps allow it to come down, but I disagree. Why? Because when Bush was in office gas was in the $2.60's-$2.80's, and that's been a stated "fair market price" by many economists, and a campaign goal of many of the current candidates. I really do think its attainable, and I really do think it will happen, but NO WAY does it happen under Obama's watch.

DJ-B wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

I'm not opposed to EVs, at all. In fact, I think it's a great idea to never have to go to the pump, to be able to get your "gas" at home, and save money and emissions in the process. However, with current electricity production coming by way of 70%+ by coal fired plants, the relative price of gas, and the state of EV technology, it's just not feasible right now. You know how I know it's not? Because the market is telling us so. The EV tech cost X amount of dollars and over the realistic useful cycle of the car you can't SAVE enough to cover the difference. Financially they simply do not make sense right now, period. The tech can be wonderful and amazing, but it literally doesn't make CENTS to buy it at this point in time.

More decent points, however the bolded part is ridiculous. Lets start with the old "If everyone was jumping off a bridge......" and go right on to the point that The market doesnt know what products are good, just like they dont know what politicians are good and what they will do once elected. People are way more caught up with what Celeb got caught doing something stupid by TMZ or which $300 pair of sunglasses that cost $10 to make they should buy next, etc ad nauseum. If you look to what the general market bears out , when that general market is the common man, you will end up being a sucker your entire life.

I disagree DJ. If these things saved $3k per year and cost $10k more than similarly situated vehicles and saved $15k over a 5 year period they would be flying off the assembly line. It's the same with "energy star" appliances, thermally insulated windows, insulation in your home, etc. None of that stuff would sell absent people willing to spend more now on a product that saves them money later.

DJ-B wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

Now, if GM wants to produce these things without tax credits and ship them to Brittan, where gas is $8 a gallon, that's AWESOME! I hope to send them out by the freighter full, but that doesn't mean our government should force them upon us here, where they're clearly not wanted or useful.

Still agree with you that the tax credits shouldnt be given for any of these cars, and that targetting areas with High gas cost is very logical, but again that isnt GMs Fault or an indictment of the car at all. Considering the stat is out that the average volt owner makes 170k annually, it is probably safe to assume that remove the tax credit would likely have had little impact on the average purchaser making that choice.

I actually disagree that removing the tax credit would have little impact on the market for these things. Some people just LOVE taking advantage of "free" govt. money, and jump all over these programs just because they feel like they're getting a deal. Others aren't smart enough to do the math and figure out that the car is a net loser, but can afford $35k. If these things cost $42k only the super wealthy would have them. It would virtually take the vehicle out of the upper middle class market. I know the "average income" for buyers is $170k, but there are plenty of buyers in the $60-80k range. I think all of those are lost without the $7,500 in govt. money.

DJ-B wrote:

My Conclusion:

As much as i like the idea, and have tried talking myself into a greener footprint and "gas free driving" for the wife to her office which is 17 miles from our condo... I think I am leaning towards the cheapest 4 door High Gas Mileage compact ICE just based on cost. BUt I will still factor the volt in with its cost-savings benefits when I calculate "Overall Cost" for 3 years.

Ha, I like how you disagree with me, but come to the same conclusion when its time to purchase one.

May 25th, 2012, 12:01 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2347

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

Just to clarify, I diagreed with the way you approached the argument, and just reisterated RJs point that you guys werent even having the same discussion.

Never once did i discuss the financial viability other than in my conclusion as I was reading the thread to learn more about it.

I also don't think a corvette is financially viable for me, but that doesnt make it a loser, junk, garbage etc.. just a care I can't afford, yet others can, and will buy it even though it has no practical advatage and simply is a show of status. The Volt could be seen as the same thing, except the status shown is that the person believes in green energy, even if it costs them more now to help promote the technology. To me that makes a lot more sense than some bunghole with a small prick who just wants a fast car to make themselves feel better.

May 25th, 2012, 3:41 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4006Location: Davison Mi

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

Quote:

Ha, I like how you disagree with me, but come to the same conclusion when its time to purchase one.

There-in lies the rube (and why I got involved) I dont think that many people would disagree with you...including M2K.

The debate he kept fighting was the terminology of "junk"

the car has no known common faults. it doesn't have a breakdown reputation (yet...like the 2012 draft it's still too early to say for sure) and it's very high tech and fairly impressive compared to yesteryear tech.

M2K is affiliating the words "Junk" and "gabrage" as the same thing as the car being a lemon. You are using the words based off of practicality. i think thats where the biggest disagreement comes from.

I think that through most of the debate your conversations were awsome (both of you)...but you know me...when a debate starts becoming personal and you start attacking the man, and not the issue....I get disgruntled. Mike didn't lobby the pres to basically sponsor the car...he just did his job and did his part to design a critically (even if not fiscally) acclaimed vehicle. He SHOULD be proud of the work he did..the awards that it gets are a pat on the back for him...weather you mean it or not by saying the machine is junk you ARE personally insulting him..and I agree with the idea that the car is FAR from junk...the politics that follow it though...im with you ...garbage!

look you both are entitled to you opinion, and I will never discredit you for having yours whether I agree with it or not...all I ask is that the same kind of respect go around the table.

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

May 25th, 2012, 5:59 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10136Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

regularjoe12 wrote:

Quote:

Ha, I like how you disagree with me, but come to the same conclusion when its time to purchase one.

There-in lies the rube (and why I got involved) I dont think that many people would disagree with you...including M2K.

The debate he kept fighting was the terminology of "junk"

the car has no known common faults. it doesn't have a breakdown reputation (yet...like the 2012 draft it's still too early to say for sure) and it's very high tech and fairly impressive compared to yesteryear tech.

M2K is affiliating the words "Junk" and "gabrage" as the same thing as the car being a lemon. You are using the words based off of practicality. i think thats where the biggest disagreement comes from.

I think that through most of the debate your conversations were awsome (both of you)...but you know me...when a debate starts becoming personal and you start attacking the man, and not the issue....I get disgruntled. Mike didn't lobby the pres to basically sponsor the car...he just did his job and did his part to design a critically (even if not fiscally) acclaimed vehicle. He SHOULD be proud of the work he did..the awards that it gets are a pat on the back for him...weather you mean it or not by saying the machine is junk you ARE personally insulting him..and I agree with the idea that the car is FAR from junk...the politics that follow it though...im with you ...garbage!

look you both are entitled to you opinion, and I will never discredit you for having yours whether I agree with it or not...all I ask is that the same kind of respect go around the table.

Joe, this pretty much sums it up very well. My contention is that the car is very good. We are now well over a year into it being on the road, and the warranty numbers look very, very good. 12 months in service is not the ideal look at warranty, but you can do trend charts based off similar vehicles, and see that this is a well made, well engineered car. That has been my stance all along.

I don't agree with the tax credits, and I know for a fact that people wouldn't buy the car if not for the tax credits. The same can be said of other hybrids that have the tax credits. I know that with gas at $3 or even $4 per gallon, the car doesn't make financial sense for everyone. However, it was never supposed to. It is targeted toward those who want a vehicle that can be used as a commuter car, and not have to pay for gas. I live within 10 miles of my workplace, and I spend around $160-$200 a month in gas. I have an Impala. Not the most fuel efficient vehicle, but it does get me around 23 mpg overall. For me, that car would be well suited. However, I am buying the Impala and enjoy the size of it. For me, right now, I'll keep the Impala. But for zero down and $350 a month, I could see myself getting a Volt and being OK with it financially, even with gas prices as they are now.

The other point I've been trying to make is that the best way to advance the technology is to put the car into customer hands and gather data accordingly. I don't think the government, the energy companies, or the car companies know exactly what impact that car would have on the grid, the environment or on the technology in general until they put the car into the hands of consumers and let them drive them. There have already been advancements in the battery technology, something wjb has said he supports...research and development. Putting the cars on the road IS part of that, and the battery lab has used information from the cars that are in the hands of customers to work on that technology.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

May 26th, 2012, 1:13 pm

DJ-B

Rookie Player of the Year

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pmPosts: 2347

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

I actually thank all 3 of you for your insights about EV in general, as my wifes car got worse yesterday. The Driver side front CV boot is torn, and about to disnegage making it dangerous as it could happen during driving, or at least strand the vehicle somewhere.

So since yesterday when I posted it went from "Starting to look for a car for later this year" to "Well its memorial day so there are lots of sales, we probably need to buy a car this weekend." This discussion helped and I will be including a volt and Prius into the possible options. If there are any other cars you "car guys" recommend me looking at id appreciate it.

We are lookign to buy New for the warranty, trade in value of her car

Main Factors in Order of Importance:

1) Price - Initial + Gase Mileage + Operating costs for min of 3 yrs... (we may only use this car for 3 years, so even a cheapo lease would be an option. She really wants a Ford Flex for long term when we have kids and for moving poop, but we dont need it yet, and he old care is a 02 corolla so she is used to a compact.

6) Not Fugly - Doesnt have to be hot poop, but we still care the smallest amount what it looks like.

May 26th, 2012, 3:45 pm

TheRealWags

Modmin Dude

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 amPosts: 12312

Re: Cost To Drive a Volt

Just a couple quick comments / opinions

DJ-B wrote:

We are lookign to buy New for the warranty, trade in value of her car

If possible, NEVER buy new; as soon as you sign the paperwork the value of said vehicle drops dramatically.

My wife & I bought a 2008 Prius a couple months ago to replace her 2004 Focus. Sort, sweet conclusion: She LOVES it. She drives ~25 miles one way to work and uses it as her daily commuter. It has a TON of room and, of course, gets great gas mileage (~50 MPG).